new instrument PTS

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:50:27 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Actually, they don't.

They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.


This is quite a different situation. Dropping the requirement to use
specific holding pattern entries is not at all ambiguous and leaves no doubt
as to the intent of the PTS authors. Failing someone simply because they
didn't do a teardrop entry clearly contradicts both the spirit and the
letter of the law.

Most laws and I suspect the PTS are written largely in response to
challenges. It may be that the PTS are not specific with regards to moving
maps simply because no one has forced the question yet. As for which way OK
City would rule on the matter, flip a coin. It's certainly going to get more
complicated as we move beyond aircraft with one little GPS in the panel to
172s with G1000s.

I suspect that if the FAA wished to have any applicant tested without
a moving map, they could have simply stated so in the PTS.

Your position opens all kinds of doors that were meant to be closed
by publishing standards in the first place.



Edmund Burke said, "We must bear with infirmities until they fester into
crimes." I have a hard time seeing too much evil in this topic since I don't
find it at all unreasonable for a student to execute non-GPS approaches
without a moving map. Maybe that's silly in an SR-22 where the only way you
lose a moving map is to lose all your radios, but it's not in my 172, which
features 2 NAV/COMs, an ADF, and a Loran. A pilot who flew IFR only in the
SR-22 would likely feel a little lonely at first in my 172 and I'd certainly
need some time to learn how all those doodads worked in the Cirrus. In the
big-plane world they handle this by making everyone get a type rating, and
with FITS and the insurance companies it seems this is the direction we're
headed in GA as well.

-cwk.